Genesis, they tell me, is a myth. Oh, now, let's be careful. First, "they" -- "they" who? Well, of course, unbelievers have no problem telling me that Genesis is myth because they believe the whole Bible to be myth. Perhaps some moral allegory to teach some notions of right and wrong, but certainly not truth. That's one "they." The next would be those whom the Bible refers to as "so-called brothers" -- self-identified Christians who assure me they have a high view of Scripture ... just not Genesis. No, that's not true, either. They say it is the high view of Genesis to understand it as myth "as it was intended." And, to be accurate, generally this particular "they" limits that claim to Genesis 1-11. Certainly Genesis 1-2. Surely all that stuff about "speaking it into existence" is nonsense and, look, who in this day and age still believes that Creation could have occurred in 6 days? But that global flood thing has to go, too. And all the stuff in between, like Methuselah, the 960-year-old man. Look around you! Never happened.
But, I have to ask. Why is Genesis myth? Specifically, why are the Creation story and the Flood mythical? It's very simple; it violates modern science. If Darwin was right, Genesis was wrong. If Genesis was right, Darwin was wrong. In both cases, the Creation and the Flood paint a different pictures of our origins than modern science accepts. And if we want to be reasonable and rational and acceptable, we'll have to mythologize that silly Genesis stuff. Of course, it can't end there. All of the miraculous events of the Bible run contrary to science. Some, with their extreme dedication to science, therefore, will simply eliminate the miraculous portions of Scripture by assigning it to myth or fantasy or fable. Others appear to have no problem defending science for their Creation story but allowing Scripture to have things like the Resurrection. The cognitive dissonance is loud in this case. Personally, I have no problem questioning science. When anything -- person, science, whatever -- sets out to deny God -- the fundamental aim of the theory of Evolution -- I question their agenda. I question their conclusions. I even question their "facts." Anyone who tells me "I know better than God" is suspect to me. Mind you, not everyone who mythologizes Genesis is saying this; some have just been lied to. But the aim and the ongoing struggle has been to arrive at "We don't need God to explain our universe." And, claiming to be wise, they become fools. As a matter of fact, science suggests that this Evolution story might be suspect. But, hey, as in so many other areas, I can't voice that out loud. So I go on believing the version in the Bible over against the version from the canon of Science. It actually aligns better with what we see in nature than Evolution does.
So let's ask the opposite question. What would necessitate that I view Genesis as historical narrative rather than myth? Well, first, Jesus promised that He would send the Holy Spirit to lead His followers into all truth. For 1700 years after that, not one of Jesus's followers figured out that Genesis was myth. That seems like a colossal failure on the part of the Holy Spirit. But, okay, what else? Opponents of historical narrative stop at chapter 11. Why? What is fundamentally different between, say, chapter 11 and chapter 12? Nothing. There are no textual clues that suggest a change. Later, Moses, quoting God, premised the basis for the Sabbath on the story of Creation. What nonsense if no such event occurred! Jesus took the texts to be historical rather than mythical. Paul understood Adam to be a real person and not a myth. No biblical character references Genesis as myth. All references are made to historical characters. As for the Flood, doesn't it strike anyone as odd that every ancient culture seems to have a Flood story in its dim dark lore? And more.
The text and the context and the rest of Scripture all attest to the historical nature of Genesis, beginning to end. Attempts at mythologize some portion are artificial ... and new. Prior to modern science, everyone understood the text to be historical narrative. It is only modern markets that have bowed the knee to Modern Science and required that God's Word does the same. In the process, they call into question the reliability of the rest of Scripture and every critical component (with a particular eye toward the Resurrection). I, personally, have no problem with God's Word as it is written. I look at nature and see no problem with nature as originated in Scripture. The Bible begins with its own most offensive statement: "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth" (Gen 1:1). Man has been kicking against it ever since. Repentance is a good thing. I say let God be God.
2 comments:
The arrogance of believing there could not possibly be error in science with regard to the origins of all things is particularly galling to me. There's no possible way to do the typical scientific proving of that which came well before human existence. All which can be done is based on our human perceptions of what nature seems to reveal. But we already know that, for example, all dating processes have limitations and are often incorrect in determining the age of any given object. Carbon dating, for example, has been shown to be suspect.
At the same time, I have no issue with science believing their research is getting the job done, even if they are completely wrong. The disparity between science and Genesis compels modern man to side with science so as not to be viewed by others as superstitious rubes. I'm not at all concerned with such things, so I have no trouble believing Scripture.
First, as you suggest, science cannot explain the miraculous because the miraculous is that which acts outside the rules of nature and physics. What's more, what exists after the miracle cannot be proven to have been that which it was prior to the miracle. A former leper will not show signs of ever having been a leper (there's a good scene in Life Of Brian where former cripple Michael Palin struggles to procure charity because he's been healed by Christ, Who by healing him ruined Palin's ability to earn as a cripple).
Because science is incapable of dealing with the miraculous, it can only conclude based on what man-made scientific methods, techniques and tools tell it. Thus, to science, it "appears" the universe is a gazillion years old when it, according to Scripture, is far, far younger. The common response to this is the question, "Why would God trick us?" as if our own shortcomings and inability to perceive through science His miracle of Creation is the result of some fraud purposely perpetrated by God. No. It couldn't possibly be the science!
I believe the earth was created in six days and science, invented by the church to explain God's creation, now seeks instead to deny God even exists.
Natural science, trying to measure the supernatural, is like using a voltmeter to try to measure air pressure. Wrong instrument.
Post a Comment